From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rutger Helling Subject: bug#29363: Single test failure building Guix Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:49:08 +0100 Message-ID: <3050db67ea7f97da2733f9aacfef687f@mykolab.com> References: <89edb4cc307bfae5db7812abe3b4a37a@mykolab.com> <874lpp3pxw.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_a66032b85506f47ce59faee6155206cd" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGtNK-0000lO-UN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:13:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGtNG-0002S5-RH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:13:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:40829) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGtNG-0002RP-Mn for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:13:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eGtNG-0005Cn-Eu for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:13:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-To: 29363@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: <87fu981wpl.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <874lpp3pxw.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: ludo@gnu.org --=_a66032b85506f47ce59faee6155206cd Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Ludo, it is indeed reproducible. No matter how many times it always keeps failing on this one test. I've had this problem for a long time, which is a little bit annoying since it means I have to wait until a substitute is available every time. On 2017-11-20 16:55, ludo@gnu.org wrote: > Hi Rutger, > > Rutger Helling skribis: > >> test-name: dead path can be explicitly collected >> location: /tmp/guix-build-guix-0.13.0-10.0b4c385.drv-0/source/tests/store.scm:178 >> source: >> + (test-assert >> + "dead path can be explicitly collected" >> + (let ((p (add-text-to-store >> + %store >> + "random-text" >> + (random-text) >> + '()))) >> + (let-values >> + (((paths freed) (delete-paths %store (list p)))) >> + (and (equal? paths (list p)) >> + (> freed 0) >> + (not (file-exists? p)))))) >> actual-value: #f >> result: FAIL > > I didn't experience this on my laptop. Is it reproducible if you run > "guix build guix" a second time? > > Thanks, > Ludo'. --=_a66032b85506f47ce59faee6155206cd Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Hi Ludo,

it is indeed reproducible. No matter how many times it always keeps fail= ing on this one test.

I've had this problem for a long time, which is a little bit annoying si= nce it means I have to wait until a substitute is available every time.

On 2017-11-20 16:55, ludo@gnu.org wrote:

= Hi Rutger,

Rutger Helling <rhelling@mykolab.com> skribis:

test-name: dead path can be explicitly collected
= location: /tmp/guix-build-guix-0.13.0-10.0b4c385.drv-0/source/tests/store= =2Escm:178
source:
+ (test-assert
+   "dead pat= h can be explicitly collected"
+   (let ((p (add-text-to-st= ore
+           &nb= sp;  %store
+        &nb= sp;     "random-text"
+    &n= bsp;         (random-text)
+            &nbs= p; '())))
+     (let-values
+  &n= bsp;    (((paths freed) (delete-paths %store (list p)))= )
+       (and (equal? paths (list p))<= br /> +            (= > freed 0)
+          = ;  (not (file-exists? p))))))
actual-value: #f
result= : FAIL

I didn't experience this on my laptop.  Is it reproducible if y= ou run
"guix build guix" a second time?

Thanks,
Lu= do'.


--=_a66032b85506f47ce59faee6155206cd--